No Iraq link to Al Qaeda before the war? Check this out...

[Machiavelli]

Clinton didnt downsize the military, Bush used Clinton's military to walk all over Afghanistan.
Clinton just started using funds to buy cruise missles, unmanned attack aircraft and invested in technology to reduce the manpower but increase the bang of the US military.
The myth that he downsized the military was a fallacy started by the GOP and was backed up with the fact he closed military bases and pissed off a lot of military personel. The truth is, most of the technology that saves our military's lives now was developed or started development or at least funded/supported by Clinton.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Clinton didnt downsize the military, Bush used Clinton's military to walk all over Afghanistan.
Clinton just started using funds to buy cruise missles, unmanned attack aircraft and invested in technology to reduce the manpower but increase the bang of the US military.
The myth that he downsized the military was a fallacy started by the GOP and was backed up with the fact he closed military bases and pissed off a lot of military personel. The truth is, most of the technology that saves our military's lives now was developed or started development or at least funded/supported by Clinton.

Can't argue with that, bottom line is there are two sides to these issues and just because you can scan a website about a topic dosen't mean you or I know shi#t about what is really taking place, we only know what our government wants us to know. There are so many underlining factors in all of these conversations and situations, you have to play your part and believe what your heart tells you, otherwise you become fixated with the obvious BS they feed us through the media.

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by 98v6:
Bush is an idiot, but he's stubborn, so hell yeah, that's my kinda guy.. Screw that idiot kerry that knows what's goin on and has a plan to do something to fix all the problems we need to keep him out of a position where his superior knowledge and skill can help him make a difference in the best interest of our country. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, Kerry's got the Master Plan, but will he stick to it, or change his stance to look good in the polls...
[img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img]

[98v6]

Originally posted by L32Projekt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98v6:
Bush is an idiot, but he's stubborn, so hell yeah, that's my kinda guy.. Screw that idiot kerry that knows what's goin on and has a plan to do something to fix all the problems we need to keep him out of a position where his superior knowledge and skill can help him make a difference in the best interest of our country. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, Kerry's got the Master Plan, but will he stick to it, or change his stance to look good in the polls...
[img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]He has to stay in his party lines... The party has the power, not the candidate. That's what makes bush so bad.

[95fbirdkid]

Originally posted by 98v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If there's strong info. or ties to it that North Korea plans to Nuke us, then Nuke 'em first. Why wait

You wait because the person who does it first is in the wrong. We would nuke them in defense... but if we make the first strike it has a different name: ATTACK. This is ludicrous, it's just like Iraq. You gotta have PROOF before you make a pre-emptive strike and what they're finding out at this very minute is that YOU DONT GET PROOF TILL THEY ATTACK YOU. It's very bad diplomacy, bad policy... etc. Because then, when the chips are down for your country, you can say look, we had suspicions but we never attacked. You don't have any conclusive proof, so plz return the favor. If you already nuked their ***, it gives the rest of the world all the excuse they need to nuke you for no reason. </font>[/QUOTE]I hope lubbock tx is the place that gets nuked then. If we have evidence that we are about to be attacked, **** them, we need to act. Its called prevention, only pussy's wait to be attacked before they take action.

for you

[98v6]

If we have evidence that we are about to be attacked, **** them, we need to act.

But no evidence is conclusive enough to merit a strong enough course of action to prevent their attack. It's stupid, you're wrong, admit it and go enlist so you can get yourself killed in the name of George W. Bush the Mighty, Ruler of the World and Defender of All that is Good.

[3.4 [deployed]]

Once again, you're ignorance, no stupidity shines through. Thanks for making me laugh, even way out here.

[98v6]

Originally posted by 3.4 [deployed]:
Once again, you're ignorance, no stupidity shines through. Thanks for making me laugh, even way out here.

Once again, your ignorance of the English language and stupidity shine through. Good job getting one sentence right though, I know you have a lot of trouble with things like grammar and spelling because of the fact that your intelligence quotient is less than pi.

[hawgs]

I believe 90% of this board will agree with me when I say that you're a HUGE tool 98v6. Just STFU and move on. No one likes you here and I take great offense in you making fun of someone like 3.4 who is oversees defending this great country... I would love to see you over there.

[BirdOfPrey01]

You wait because the person who does it first is in the wrong. We would nuke them in defense...

Wrong, again, please step outside of political correctness circle. Get real, you want them to nuke us first? What if they destroy our whole country. Then what? Are we going to attack them with pitch forks and hand guns?

Waiting for an enemy to attack is the worst thing you can do. It shows great weakness, it would be catastrophic if they nuked the USA. The wind would blow the radiation around and kill millions, not to mention the damage form the initial blast. You have be be clinically insane to want them to attack us first.

Attacking spelling errors of another member will not help your argument.

[ June 20, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: BirdOfPrey01 ]

[3.4 [deployed]]

He's just like one of those annoying little toy dogs always yapping that just need a good kick in the face to shut them up. No substance. Non-existant, just like his maturity. But time to get back to topic, which ironically equates to putting him in his place:

once again, some good stuff from boortz.com

FINALLY, THOUGH, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS FIGHTING BACK

Finally, for once, the Bush administration has grown a pair and is hitting back over the media allegations that the 9/11 Commission has "discredited" the president's assertion that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. There clearly was, but such is their desire to defeat President Bush for re-election, the biased media is reporting otherwise.

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the evidence was "overwhelming" that Al-Qaeda had a relationship with Iraq. He called the media reports that the 9/11 Commission report was contradictory "irresponsible." He also said "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming." Cheney then went on to say the contact goes back to the 90's, and involved Osama Bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.

Then, Cheney finally dropped the hammer. He said the press is "often times lazy, often times just reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework." Truer words have never been spoken, except he could have added that the Bush-hating liberal media wants to do everything it can to defeat his administration and elect The Poodle.

The Bush administration, including the president himself has said that there was a relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, because there was. What the 9/11 Commission is saying is the same thing the president has said, which is that there is no evidence of a direct link between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th.

There was never a contradiction, nothing has been discredited and there is no inconsistency, and the media knows it. At least this time, the administration is hitting back.

(now for the tool to start whining about biased media :rolleyes: )

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005237

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39025

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/23192.htm

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

[3.4 [deployed]]

MY opinion on the use of nukes........only in response to a chemical/biological attack of sufficient magnatude to warrant such a response. Tactical nukes are there for a purpose and still pose a very credable detterant. The cold war is over, and I seriously doubt that any "official" weapons system would be ued in a first/preemptive strike. That's what SOCOM & Daisy Cutters are for. Counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare are the new battlefeilds, and the weapons for such combat are adapted to those needs.

[95fbirdkid]

Once again, your ignorance of the English language and stupidity shine through. Good job getting one sentence right though, I know you have a lot of trouble with things like grammar and spelling because of the fact that your intelligence quotient is less than pi. [/QB]

Its a ****ing message board, what kind of tool brings up grammar or spelling?

I believe 90% of this board will agree with me when I say that you're a HUGE tool 98v6. Just STFU and move on. No one likes you here and I take great offense in you making fun of someone like 3.4 who is oversees defending this great country... I would love to see you over there.

HUGE TOOL


edit - nice sig nate [img]graemlins/dj.gif[/img]

[ June 20, 2004, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: 95fbirdkid ]

[Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by 98v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If there's strong info. or ties to it that North Korea plans to Nuke us, then Nuke 'em first. Why wait

You wait because the person who does it first is in the wrong. We would nuke them in defense... but if we make the first strike it has a different name: ATTACK. This is ludicrous, it's just like Iraq. You gotta have PROOF before you make a pre-emptive strike and what they're finding out at this very minute is that YOU DONT GET PROOF TILL THEY ATTACK YOU. It's very bad diplomacy, bad policy... etc. Because then, when the chips are down for your country, you can say look, we had suspicions but we never attacked. You don't have any conclusive proof, so plz return the favor. If you already nuked their ***, it gives the rest of the world all the excuse they need to nuke you for no reason. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's put this in Layman's term so you can understand.

I told someone my intention. I'm coming over to your house with a bat. I'm going to kill your parents and beat you on the head slowly till you die. Then I'm going to rape your sister and then beat her with the bat.

Now you know what my intentions are. I haven't done it yet but you know I'm planning on it. Others have tried to talk me out of it but I am all game now. What are you going to do. Wait for me to do it first or what?

Call the police duh, and have me arrested. But what if I have others on the game and I'm the guy orchestrating it.

Simple as that man, what are you going to do. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[98v6]

so let's call the international cops on N. Korea... jackass.